PBUC , J/R, and Evans

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
It never ceases to amaze me. You took one sentence out of context, just like you did to WWTB. I said that I didn't find his way of writing to be condescending because I teach and have a law degree. I am surrounded by people who try to impress each other all day. I teach pre-law and enjoy not having to hear and see preening attorneys before the bench. I never said that I was smarter or more literate. I simply pointed out that his style doesn't bother me - Tim C. and Garth's do. It is nice to know that your strength is in putting people down rather than adding to the conversation. WWTB's famous verbal obstruction call post was a couple of weeks ago yet Garth never added his opinion. Even though he now says he disagrees with the Fed ruling; where was your post to say what you thought back then? It is so much easier to sit on the side and put others down when they make a stand. I tried to be diplomatic but I now see why some people find the bot of you to be arrogant. You put down others for picking on grammatical errors, then do it yourselves. I'll borrow a line you seem fond of. "~sigh ~"

Pete:

I think you misread Garth's post. Here's what he said, speaking of himself in the third person: "He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved."

More importantly, it would be helpful if you'll quote a line or two of the person to whom you are replying. That way, we can figure out who's about to get trounced.

As it were.

[Tim C]

Poor Pete:

"Okay, I'll admit that several of you are making the rest of us irritated with your comments about working solo being beneath you or a place that rookies should never go."

OK, another side of being pompous is to make statements using the royal "us" or "we". I don't think you have actually caught the feelings of the "other posters" in the thread and I am darn sure none of them have given you the approval to state their feelings for them.

---------------------

"I teach pre-law . . . "

We know, we know and if you keep telling us it becomes a WOBW.

---------------------

" . . . because I am taking a winter league game when most of the umpires around here are reffing basketball."

AGAIN, now your pomposity shows through as being a geographical area snob.

Pete, you take things waaaay too seriously.

Especially yourself.

Love and Kisses,

Tee

PS:

Pete, we know from previous points that you agree with WCB on the "FED verbel obstruction" so you are rather transparent in some of your points.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

have been reading old archived discussions about incorporating PBUC, Jaska/Roder, and Jim Evans interpretations into the OBR book in the future.

My question is.....WHEN?

For the majority of us amateur umpires it really doesn't matter what MLB does, because we do not use PURE OBR rules anyway.

In addition, the OBR rule-book is boring. When I first started umpiring I did not think I would be umpiring for long because I fell asleep during the rules portion. The instructor put in a tape, turned off the lights and the next thing I knew someone was waking me up.

IMO, the majority of us learn through examples and that's what the reference materials do for us. They EXPLAIN the rules using examples.

Also, even if MLB does in fact re-write the rule-book it still has to go through the players association. MLB is a DIFFERENT game. Case and point:

About 5 yrs ago or there abouts, MLB issued a memo to the umpires to start calling more balks because they felt F1's were getting away with too much. In the forst 6 months of that year more balks were called then in the previous year.
The players association got involved and basically said "this is OUR game and go back to the old way of calling things" if you want to umpire in OUR league.

In summary, for the majority of us, the MLB rule book is a moot point. For me personally Papa C's book is a great source because I call ball using more than one rule code.

Most leagues even Legion uses a FPSR and a No Malicious Contact rule. No matter what MLB does I do not think they will adopt SAFETY rules which most of us are used to.

The interpretations that matter most are what the NCAA writes and the FED writes because those rule codes are what we as amateurs deal with on a daily bases.

The problem is in leagues that "borrow" the OBR rule-book and try and apply it to the amateur game. It's like oil and water - they do not mix.

The materials that you quoted are reference materials that explain the rules. No matter what is written there will always be some "grey areas" that we rely on expert opinions.

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by PeteBooth


For the majority of us amateur umpires it really doesn't matter what MLB does, because we do not use PURE OBR rules anyway.

In addition, the OBR rule-book is boring. When I first started umpiring I did not think I would be umpiring for long because I fell asleep during the rules portion. The instructor put in a tape, turned off the lights and the next thing I knew someone was waking me up.

IMO, the majority of us learn through examples and that's what the reference materials do for us. They EXPLAIN the rules using examples.

Also, even if MLB does in fact re-write the rule-book it still has to go through the players association. MLB is a DIFFERENT game. Case and point:

About 5 yrs ago or there abouts, MLB issued a memo to the umpires to start calling more balks because they felt F1's were getting away with too much. In the forst 6 months of that year more balks were called then in the previous year.
The players association got involved and basically said "this is OUR game and go back to the old way of calling things" if you want to umpire in OUR league.

In summary, for the majority of us, the MLB rule book is a moot point. For me personally Papa C's book is a great source because I call ball using more than one rule code.

Most leagues even Legion uses a FPSR and a No Malicious Contact rule. No matter what MLB does I do not think they will adopt SAFETY rules which most of us are used to.

The interpretations that matter most are what the NCAA writes and the FED writes because those rule codes are what we as amateurs deal with on a daily bases.

The problem is in leagues that "borrow" the OBR rule-book and try and apply it to the amateur game. It's like oil and water - they do not mix.

The materials that you quoted are reference materials that explain the rules. No matter what is written there will always be some "grey areas" that we rely on expert opinions.

Pete Booth

Pete,

I feel the same way about Fed rules. Boring, and other than the safety rules, nutty. Some of the rules seem like the committee was on acid when they came up with them.

Nearly every amateur league out here uses the OBR. They modify one playing rule, the "no malicious contact" rule.
They never mention a FPSR. Pony Baseball, which has been around since 1953, has always used "The Sporting News Rules" since its inception. Of course, the parts of the rules concerning professional baseball only, are not enforced. Nobody enforces the fraternization rule, or Rule 1.16, or any other rule designed for the pros. They modify the technical rules to fit the age groups, and their amateur status.

We work the CIF High School season from March through the end of May, with the playoffs spilling into the first week of June. After that, we work exclusively OBR for the rest of the year, except for any Coaches Winter or Summer League high school games, for which, of course, we use Fed rules. We often have a group of kids in a Coaches League game on Tuesday, and have the same kids in a Colt or Palomino game on Thursday. They have to know the rule differences too. Many times it gets confusing to the players and coaches. I've had to explain why the ball was still alive on a balk after a base hit, or why the pitcher couldn't go to his mouth on the rubber. It goes with the territory.

But we don't choose the rules these leagues use. The leagues choose which rules to play by, and we just have to deal with it.

The second and third paragraphs of the Foreword of the OBR states:

"We recognize that many amateur and non-professional organizations play their games under professional rules, and we are happy to make our rules available as widely as possible. It is well to remember that specifications as to fields, equipment, etc. may be modified to meet the needs of each group.

Money fines, long-term suspensions and similar penalties imposed by this code are not practical for amateur groups, but officers and umpires of such organizations should insist on strict observance of all rules governing the playing of the game."

Other than the "slide or avoid" rule, we do.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 20th, 2005 at 11:40 AM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
WWTB's famous verbal obstruction call post was a couple of weeks ago yet Garth never added his opinion. Even though he now says he disagrees with the Fed ruling;

I object your honor. Learned supposed counselor is misprepresenting the facts.

Fact: I never said I disagree with the FED ruling. If the alleged attorney for the dense would be willing to supply testimony to the contrary, I should love to hear it.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
About 5 yrs ago or there abouts, MLB issued a memo to the umpires to start calling more balks because they felt F1's were getting away with too much. In the forst 6 months of that year more balks were called then in the previous year.
The players association got involved and basically said "this is OUR game and go back to the old way of calling things" if you want to umpire in OUR league.
Pete Booth

Pete: Don't I wish you were right!

In fact, the rule change occurred in 1988 and was in place for one year until the player's union voted it down.

The rule was "complete and discernible balk," and the umpires called, as you indicated, twice as many balks.

But at my age, I cetainly wish 1988 was "about five years ago."

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Pete: Don't I wish you were right!

In fact, the rule change occurred in 1988 and was in place for one year until the player's union voted it down.

The rule was "complete and discernible balk," and the umpires called, as you indicated, twice as many balks.

But at my age, I cetainly wish 1988 was "about five years ago."

So, you really don't read my posts! (grin)

Four posts above I wrote: Pete: I think you misread Garth's post. Here's what he said, speaking of himself in the third person: "He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved."

I liked Alibi Ike, too. And I almost saw it in its first season. I did not know Joe E. Brown played minor league ball.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

So, you really don't read my posts! (grin)

Four posts above I wrote: Pete: I think you misread Garth's post. Here's what he said, speaking of himself in the third person: "He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved."

I liked Alibi Ike, too. And I almost saw it in its first season. I did not know Joe E. Brown played minor league ball.

Uh, Carl....who are you talking to?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Pete: Don't I wish you were right!

In fact, the rule change occurred in 1988 and was in place for one year until the player's union voted it down.

The rule was "complete and discernible balk," and the umpires called, as you indicated, twice as many balks.

But at my age, I cetainly wish 1988 was "about five years ago."

Carl, you did mean to say "complete and discernable stop," am I correct?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Carl, you did mean to say "complete and discernable stop," am I correct?

Well, now that I think about it....

[BigUmp56]

I thought it was "complete and discernable pause."

Whatever it was, I like Carl's new one better. It makes my job easier.


Tim.

[Kaliix]

Hey BigDump, your apology is not accepted. Don't sit there and talk trash about any particular association when you can't possibly know what situations exist in the schools that will only pay for one umpire. Some of the schools were one or two votes from not having any sports. They cannot afford to pay for two umpires no matter what we do.

How exactly is a new umpire like myself (2 yrs) supposed to affect change in my association anyways? You think they are going to listen to the new guy anyway? Geeez!

Originally posted by BigUmp56

1) Let's talk about your screen name and mine. You're the one who had come back to this board under a new assumed identity. I was the first one to figure out that it was the old WCB back under a new alias. This must have really bothered you that a low life like me, who by your account has limited reading skills, was able to ferret you out. I on the other hand, use one moniker on at least five umpiring boards. I'm not afraid of my convictions, and I have no need to hide behind multiple aliases. When I'm wrong, I have no problem with being corrected by someone with more knowledge than I have, as long as they do it in an informative polite manner. You my friend, are simply unable to help anyone out without insulting them with your underlying rude comments. The primary reasons I frequent these boards are to learn from others, and to enjoy a little camaradarie with other baseball officilials from around the country. You come here to lord your writing skills over anyone who has a view on a topic contrary to your own. You very seldom answer a question directly. You have a knack for skirting the heart of the question by trying to show everyone how smart you think you are. Let me give you one example of your condesending remarks. I made a post about the proper mechanic for the miss of homeplate. I kicked it badly, and I'm not afraid to admitt that I did. The first thing you said in your response to me was, "do you own a television?"
That comment was uncalled for. It would imply that I'm either too poor to afford a television, or that maybe my religous beliefs kept me from owning a television, or that I must be an ignorant hick who doesn't understand what a television is, or whatever. You could care less if I own a television, so why ask the question if it was not for the purpose of being a smart @$$?

2)I will stand by my comment about rookie umpires working solo. They shouldn't be on the diamond without an experienced partner to learn from. You should know why they need a partner if your the umpire you claim to be. They need to be trained by someone on the field. A few clinics on rules and field mechanics does not an umpire make. If they're out there alone, they're developing bad habits with no one to correct them, or help them handle sticky situations. If your association want's to throw them to the wolves, so be it. My association will not do it. If they can't come up with the $$$ for a two man, thay can get a "daddy" to work their J/V and Frosh games. If I offended anyone in making this statement I apologize. You may wan't to consider getting your association to have the jewels to put an end to this treatment, unless of course the schools are willing to pay enough, and you just don't want to split the money two ways.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Kaliix,

I would call you a name regarding your screen name as well, but it would probably just seem like a compliment to you.

You go ahead and keep working solo as a newbie umpire. Soon you'll understand why doing it is not such a good idea.

After you've been beaten like a rented mule for a while because you cannot possibly be in a position to make all the calls correctly, you'll change your tune.

I look at an association the same way I look at my union. It was not started out with the best conditions available to it's members, but with time and hard work, it enacted change for it's members through leverage. Control the workforce, control the conditions.

Sometimes a man has to stand up and fight for what he believes in.

As you grow more mature, you'll understand that one too.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

First of all Kaliix, you don't know Tim well enough to insult his screen name, so don't. It weakens your point right off the bat.

Second of all Tim, where you live, maybe you are in a position to exert leverage over the schools. Here in California, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) is the governing body, and what they say goes. If any association doesn't like the CIF's rulings, they can sit on it and rotate. Trying to tell the Section CIF what to do here in San Diego would result in our association losing the high school contract. There are plenty of other umpire groups here who would just love to do the high school ball, but our association has the exclusive contract, and we plan to keep it. If we told them that we would only work games with two umpires, they would laugh us out of the board room. You guys must have a monopoly on the umpiring there in South Bend. It's not like that in most areas.

Steve

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Kaliix,

I would call you a name regarding your screen name as well, but it would probably just seem like a compliment to you.

You go ahead and keep working solo as a newbie umpire. Soon you'll understand why doing it is not such a good idea.

After you've been beaten like a rented mule for a while because you cannot possibly be in a position to make all the calls correctly, you'll change your tune.

I look at an association the same way I look at my union. It was not started out with the best conditions available to it's members, but with time and hard work, it enacted change for it's members through leverage. Control the workforce, control the conditions.

Sometimes a man has to stand up and fight for what he believes in.

As you grow more mature, you'll understand that one too.


Tim.

One can only imagine which crevice these thoughts eked from. Just a few days ago, your pontificating drew the wrath of those who feel slighted by your comments about single man games. You alleged that rookies should never work alone, associations should demand at least two umpires for every game and those that don't have "no jewels". As you grow and mature, you'll understand how stupid these comments make you look. I've witnessed some awful two man games and even more ridiculous three man contests. Having a useless veteran out there will only make the rookie worse. I've also found that a rookie usually does things by the book and knows what he is supposed to do. Umpires like you think that they know it all because they have been at it for a few years. How many years have you been umpiring High School Varsity baseball? How many years have you been calling NCAA games?

You are an internet umpire; a very bad one at that. You want to play by the rules of the other site but then claim to be above it all. You claim that I am condescending because you have an inferiority complex. Start practicing what you preach. I can cite dozens of examples of your being a "disruptor", in the terms of the agreement page. You and SDS might also want to check the part about posting copyrighted pictures or works not owned by The Official Forum. This is not ebay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAC,

You have sunk into the mire. Must I remind you that you have posted about challenging the veracity of an opinion rather than the grammar and spelling used? Maybe you could write a column about flip flopping when it suits your needs. I'm sure it won't require much editing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garth,
I read your earlier post and understand what you wrote. You are correct that you won't convince me to change my stance on VO. Your mockery of Pete was expected. He made a grammatical mistake and you jumped all over it. Check out what I wrote to TAC, it applies equally to you. You must be a legendary umpire in your parts. I would love to see the umpire who never makes mistakes at work. When is your next game?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pete,
You've now experienced the best they have to offer. BigUmp56 and SanDiegoSteve are one trick ponies. Where one stops, the other starts; it is often difficult to see where. TAC actually knows his stuff but he is somehow relegating himself to criticizing writing skills. It's a sad turn of events. Garth is Garth; I actually like seeing him take a stance and committing himself to the battle. He has had more than a few run ins with Carl and can hold his own. I'm not sure why he has jumped on the Grammar Police bandwagon either. Usually that is a last resort for those who can't debate and he can.

It was a mistake to divulge your career. Some of these guys are filled with contempt for anyone who has achieved more than themselves. I'm not a fan of attorneys but applaud anyone who teaches. I thank you for attempting to come to my aid, but I have found that guys like BigUmp56 and SanDiegoSteve would argue with God at the Pearly Gates. It makes little sense to try to make them better, since they already believe that they are more skilled than some of the MLB pros they see.

Finally, I have been umpiring High School and College ball for just over twenty eight years. I started calling balls and strikes for youth leagues while in high school and have added that on the total on occassion. Those were my mistake filled years, as I had no formal training back then. I apologize for the confusion, I wasn't aware I had a new stalker.